campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:A new kind of federalism
Forumheader/The Soapbox When the Constitution was put together, there was this new idea called Federalism. While there is evidence to suggest some confusion as to exactly what Federalism was, it appears to me the general consensus was that power should be separated. Not only in different branches of government, but in different governments. State governments were not subservient to the federal government, and their powers were entirely separate. The State government was supposed to regulate stuff in your state, and the Federal government was supposed to regulate stuff between states. This is, obviously, not what has happened. The drinking age is a federal decision. Sure, fifty states have passed state laws that specify a drinking age. But they do so because Congress threatens to cut funding if they do not. Now I'm not trying to argue that taxes, healthcare, welfare, the drinking age, seatbelt laws, or any number of federal mandates are inherently good or bad (although I have opinions on all those issues). I am merely saying that, at the moment, Congress makes those decisions, once, for the entire country, and that's not a good thing. There are many reasons why it's a bad idea for Congress to control people's lives, instead of state (or local) governments. It's fairly easy to lobby my state legislature--it's just a quick drive to the state capital. State legislators are less busy than congressmen and I there's a better chance I can talk to the legislator rather than just to some junior staff member. It's harder for large corporations to lobby 50 state legislatures than to lobby one Congress. State rule allows for more experimentation: your state can pass one law to help the unemployed and mine can pass another and everybody can see which one works better. So how did we get like this? My personal view is that largely the power of the federal government has been expanded thorugh interperetation of the Commerce Clause of the constitution. When the Constitution was written, in order to have "interstate commerce" which fell under the jurisdiction of Congress, you would have to buy a product and someone would have to ship it accross state lines--a slow and tedious process which ocurred a lot less frequently than it does today. With the hyperincrease of communication, combined with the virtual rubber-stamp of the supreme court, interstate commerce is whatever you want it to be. Grow marijuana for your own personal consumption? Interstate commerce. Grow *wheat* for your own personal consumption? Interstate commerce. Make a phonecall? Interstate commerce. Use the Internet? Interstate commerce. Breathe? Interstate commerce. I don't think I'm alone when I say this is really a problem. Congress is running around enacting random legislation under the guise of regulating interstate commerce. Sovreign states are de facto dead, and it's about time we did something about it. Ideas? Compaqdrew 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC) :So, if I understand correctly, you are suggesting that the United States should be less like a unified nation and more like, say, the European Union? I've never looked at it that way. Now that you mention it, that's really the only way that our allocation of senators isn't complete BS. I think that there are definite issues with that arrangement, but it still sounds far better than the current state of our federal system. Personally, I think that it makes more sense to neuter the state/local governments than the federal government, but either way, it's clear that the current balance of power is far from ideal. --whosawhatsis? 06:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC) :: You said:Personally, I think that it makes more sense to neuter the state/local governments than the federal government. Please explain why you think that. Iasson 08:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC) :::I don't know. I suppose it has to do with the perception of the United States as a single nation. That and the fact that an oppressive law is an oppressive law anywhere, and each state having its own laws makes it that much more likely that such laws will exist within the US. --whosawhatsis? 21:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC) :::: As it is, the entire country is oppressed by laws. With more autonomy granted to states, individual citizens have greater control over their own future (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is the entire point of America). Compaqdrew 05:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)